On 8/4/20 7:01 PM, Dekel Peled wrote: > Struct rte_flow_item_eth will be modified to include additional > values, indicating existence or absence of VLAN headers following > the ETH header, as proposed in RFC > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-August/177349.html. > Because of ABI break this change is proposed for 20.11. > > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com> > --- > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > index 5201142..6241709 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > @@ -115,6 +115,11 @@ Deprecation Notices > following the IPv6 header, as proposed in RFC > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-August/177257.html. > > +* ethdev: The ``struct rte_flow_item_eth`` struct will be modified to include > + additional values, indicating existence or absence of VLAN headers > + following the ETH header, as proposed in RFC > + https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-August/177349.html.
It is unclear how it will coexist with VLAN items in a pattern. Are you going to add consistency checks on ethdev-layer? Also it is unclear why both bit fields and a number are required. Referenced RFC lacks definition of S-VLAN anc C-VLAN in the context. Exact definition to avoid ambiguity. So, it looks required to modify the structure, but I'd not stick to referenced RFC, since the result could differ a lot. May be reference it as just an example.
